Telecoms Want Immunity for Lawbreaking: A Roundup of Coverage from Around the Internet

Right now, high-powered lobbyists for the giant telecom companies are descending on Capitol Hill to lobby Congress. Their aim: to secure immunity for their clients, insulating them from liability for breaking the law in connection with the NSA?s illegal warrantless wiretapping program. Clearly, EFF's case against AT&T is in their crosshairs.

Considering the urgency of the issue, mainstream media coverage has been surprisingly spotty and incomplete. But there are some excellent updates and analysis from bloggers and news sources that have been doggedly covering the facts as they come in. Here are a few of our picks:

Granting amnesty to telecoms would signal Congressional acquiescence in an illegal course of conduct. It would send a loud message to other businesses and individuals: Don't worry if the executive branch comes to you secretly and demands that you violate the law or impinge on basic liberties. We'll bail you out. And it would stymie lawsuits that not only serve accountability, but also provide paths to illuminate what harm has been done to our rights.

In seeking amnesty for the telecoms, the White House is striking the same chord it hit when President Bush pardoned Lewis "Scooter" Libby: Crimes may have been committed, but so long as they are done in the name of the White House, there will be few consequences. Indeed, Michael McConnell's (flawed) argument about bankrupting the telecoms harmonizes with President Bush's claim that Libby's sentence was too harsh. Companies and individuals that break the law without the benefit of the Executive's blessing pay the consequences of their unlawful actions every day.

It is hard to overstate how much of a priority FISA immunity is for the Bush White House, and for obvious reasons. Ironically, they were actually proposing the same sweeping retroactive immunity language back in September of 2006 when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, but they could not get the Congress to pass FISA legislation. With the Democrats in control of Congress, and Democratic Beltway influence-peddlers like Gorelick working with them, their chances of obtaining such legislation are now plainly enhanced, and according to both Risen and Isikoff/Hosenball, they are likely to obtain some form of retroactive immunity now that Democrats control Congress. There are reasons -- good reasons -- why the current Congress is more popular among Republicans than Democrats.

A grim sign is the way the ACLU, normally an ally of progressive Democrats, is being kept in the dark by the Democratic leadership about their plans to "compromise" with the administration, and copies of proposed bills are being kept hidden, at this point, from progressive advocacy groups -- so we will all have too little time to react and demand constitutional protection.

I just got off the phone with Caroline Fredrickson from the ACLU, and the news is about what you'd expect if you have witnessed Democratic House behavior over the past six months. The bottom line is that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are disorganized and giving no signals to members on the FISA wiretapping expansion and retroactive immunity to telecom companies, which is going to result in horrific legislation. In the Senate, Jay Rockefeller is once again inviting Mike McConnell into closed hearings on how to fix the FISA law, and the markup is next week. There are no drafts of legislation around, which is a bad sign. The Senate Judiciary Committee is hamstrung by Dianne Feinstein, who prevents a majority, and by the instincts of Democrat leaders who, in a conflicts between Judiciary and Intelligence, will go with Intelligence because of a perceived fear of national security weakness.

Reality: No. What McConnell isn?t saying, is that the new law also allows the government to collect foreign to domestic calls and, quite possibly, domestic to domestic calls. Any communications that are ?directed at? or even ?concerning? someone overseas may be collected, even when one party to the communication is an American. That means that Americans will have our calls and emails swept up in this newly legalized dragnet.

Related Updates

As we approach the end of 2016, it’s disturbing to note the wide variety of ways in which government transparency has languished—even under an administration rhetorically committed to it. With the next administration poised to even further extend executive secrecy, it becomes ever more crucial for the courts and...

Author Malcolm Gladwell recently name-checked the EFF in an articlepublished in The New Yorker. Mr. Gladwell’s piece examines what he sees as the differences between whistle-blowers Edward Snowden and Daniel Ellsberg, and concludes that Snowden doesn’t deserve the respect (or apparently the same legal...

Can Americans expect more government surveillance once President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January? Simply put: Yes. "Sessions has made it clear that he is incredibly hostile to Silicon Valley, the internet in general, and the First and Fourth Amendments," the Electronic Frontier Foundation's ...

It’s not every day you hear old-school Vermont liberal Sen. Patrick Leahy and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the conservative curmudgeon from Wisconsin, mentioned in the same sentence. Add to the conversation maverick lefty Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon and tea party darling Rep. ...

Where will the incoming Trump administration come down on issues like surveillance, encryption, and cybersecurity? While it is impossible to know the future, we have collected everything we could find about the stated positions of Trump and those likely to be in his administration on these crucial digital privacy issues...

The Wikimedia Foundation wants a judge to decide whether a major US surveillance program is constitutional. The US government says the organization has no business bringing the case to court. As privacy advocates see it, "This is a case about the warrantless collection of communications straight from the backbone of...

A U.S. man convicted after his emails were revealed by the NSA’s PRISM program, the first public case of its kind, will not have his case overturned, an appeals court has found.In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared that Mohamud wasn’t actually a victim of...

It's not clear how Trump's administration will treat issues like mass surveillance — an area which was controversial for the Obama administration — but his Cabinet picks raise concern, said Corynne McSherry, legal director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. McSherry said Pompeo poses a particularly worrying risk to...

The new ruling concludes that government surveillance of Mohamud, the target of an FBI sting operation, did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. The decision deals a considerable blow to anti-surveillance advocates seeking to rein in activity under Section 702. TechCrunch spoke to Andrew Crocker, an attorney with the Electronic...

Cindy Cohn has a lot to do. The bespectacled 53-year-old civil rights lawyer has her hands full in her new job overseeing the digital advocacy work of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a sort of ACLU for the tech set. Now there’s an extra sense of urgency. “Until the new administration...